Susan Kramer: The Secretary of State referred to the US draft resolution that would give the intergovernmental authority on development in Somalia the power to bring in peacekeeping troops, and which includes a partial lifting of the arms embargo. The Arab League is facilitating the peace talks but is concerned that the resolution could spark an expansion of serious civil war in Somalia and lead to a broader regional conflict. Will he do what he can to ensure that the focus is on making the peace talks effective and that military force is used to support a cease fire instead of creating further conflict?

Hilary Benn: I agree completely. The situation is very delicate and volatile. The hon. Lady has set out precisely the matters that the UN Security Council will take into account when considering the US resolution. As IGAD itself has said, it is very important that front-line states are not involved in support and training missions. We support the transitional institutions, and is it right to help them build their capacity. However, that needs to be done in a way that does not lead to the consequences that she has described, as that would be a disaster. When she gets an opportunity to read the resolution, she will see that it lays a heavy emphasis on the peace negotiations that have been taking place in Khartoum. As I said earlier, the peace process is the only way forward for Somalia.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister accept that we need not only to reduce the price of drugs for all AIDS victims but also to target marginalised groups, such as sex workers, men who have sex with men, injecting drug users and prisoners, to ensure that they have access to programmes that will help them to stop being the drivers of the epidemic? Only in that way will we reverse and eliminate the rising scourge of AIDS.

Tony Blair: We have made our concerns clear to the Kazakhstan Government. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is important to make sure, whether in Almaty or anywhere else, that people are free to practice their religious faith. I assure him that we will do all we can, on our own behalf and through the non-governmental organisations with which we are co-operating there, to make sure that Hindus who have been discriminated against in that way are properly protected.

David Cameron: Yesterday, the new head of Ofsted said that the number of 11 year-olds who cannot read was a national disaster. One fifth of school children cannot find Great Britain on the map. The Prime Minister may be spending extra money, but he is not getting the basics right. Now let us turn to secondary school education. Yesterday the Treasury, the home of the clunking fist— [Interruption. ] But the Chancellor is not much of a clunking fist; he cannot even get rid of a lame duck. Yesterday the Treasury said that more than one in six young people leave school unable to read, write or add up properly. Given that young people leaving school today have spent almost all their schooling under a Labour Government, does that not show the extent of the failure?

David Borrow: At last night's meeting of the all-party group on AIDS, Martin Neary of Barnardo's explained that 250 children in this country are kept alive by NHS AIDS drugs, and that those children are due to be sent back to their country of origin. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet a small delegation to find a way of ensuring that the life of every child matters?

George Osborne: Will the Chancellor also confirm what is buried on page 198 of the report just published—that he has downgraded his growth forecast for 2008? He did not mention that.
	The Chancellor talked about sound public finances, but he downgraded his borrowing forecast again. Will he confirm that that means that Britain is set to have the largest structural deficit of any major European economy next year—as he himself might once have put it, larger than Germany, larger than France, larger than Spain and larger even than Italy? Will he confirm that he has just revised upwards his net debt figures for this year? By 2010, they will be £4 billion higher. He did not mention that in his statement, but will he confirm that when he replies?
	How on earth could the Chancellor have given a report on the state of the economy without mentioning that Britain has just recorded the largest rise in unemployment in the developed world? He is so obsessed about securing his next job that he has forgotten about the 300,000 people who have lost their jobs.
	How could the Chancellor possibly have the nerve to speak for 40 minutes without addressing the crisis in the NHS? He had no new answers today. He promised a change of gear, but as usual all we got was more of the same. His speech was full of rhetoric about the long term, but he did not address the central, long-term economic question that we face: why, according to every international measure and league table, is Britain becoming less competitive?
	Does the right hon. Gentleman remember saying when he first became Chancellor that the first challenge was to increase our productivity? It remains the first challenge today. Productivity was 2.6 per cent. when he entered the Treasury, and is just 1.5 per cent. ashe leaves. Measured against what he calls his "fundamental yardstick", has he not fundamentally failed?
	What is the Chancellor's answer? Like every central planner in history, he hides behind a relentless production of reports. There have been 70 in total, and never have so many poor trees died in vain. However, a glimpse of the truth can sometimes slip past the Treasury censors. Sir Rod Eddington jetted in from Australia to tell us what we already knew—that the UK transport network is stretched beyond capacity. The Leitch report says that the Chancellor's skills policies have led to "complexity, duplication and bureaucracy", and that it is no wonder that the UK has
	"a large and significant basic skills problem".
	Today, the Chancellor promised action for 16-year-olds, yet one 16-year-old in six cannot read, write or add up properly. They are the very children who have been educated almost entirely under a Labour Government, and they have already been failed by the Chancellor.
	The Chancellor's second challenge today was to sort out the public finances. We all know that he is a man in a hurry, but he read out his borrowing figures so quickly that people might have missed them, so I shall read them out again. Over the next six years, theright hon. Gentleman says that borrowing will be£37 billion, £31 billion, £27 billion, £26 billion,£24 billion and £22 billion. That is higher in every year than he forecast in the Budget last spring. By the way, the current Budget deficit has increased this year. Not only that, he said in the spring that we would be in surplus next year, yet today he confirmed that we will again be in deficit.
	All that borrowing comes despite the biggest tax increase in our peacetime history. Let us be absolutely clear that that means that each family will pay £9,000 extra tax each year. In a world where our competitors are simplifying and reducing business taxes, the UK is almost alone in increasing ours. Where is the long-term sense in that? Where is the sense in landing us with the most complicated tax code in the developed world?
	The Chancellor often responds by citing last year's inward investment figures. That is a typical example of the systematic distortion of statistics that we have come to expect from him, as more than half of our annual inward investment—£50 billion—comes from one company, Shell, which features in the figures only because it moved its headquarters from Britain to Holland. Does not that say everything that we need to know about this Chancellor's spin?
	The third great challenge that we face is climate change. People say that the Chancellor has become green only recently, but that is most unfair. He has been green ever since that meal at Granita. The Prime Minister remembers that and, although he does not live in Islington any more, it says something about the state of the Labour party that the restaurant is now called Desperados.
	This week, Friends of the Earth said that the Chancellors' record on climate change had been "woefully inadequate". Will he confirm that carbon emissions are higher than when he took office and that the share of taxes collected by green taxes has fallen? Today's increase in air passenger duty should have replaced other taxes and not added to them. It proves that the right hon. Gentleman is more interested in raising taxes than in cutting pollution.
	The fourth challenge is to spend public money wisely. The Chancellor once pledged to rise to that challenge. Does he remember saying when he was shadow Chancellor that he wanted to be remembered as a wise spender, not a big spender? His political obituary will say many things, but not that: he has spent £4,000 billion, and now he pledges more spending on education—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] The lemmings on the Labour Benches do not know that that was the third time that he has reannounced his extra capital spending on schools. When he first made the promise in the Budget, the Institute of Fiscal Studies dismissed it as a "highly misleading presentational device"—economist speak for "spin". Will the Chancellor confirm, after all the rhetoric, that the rate of capital spending growth is set to fall?
	The Chancellor's greatest mistake is that he has spent without reform. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has said that, despite the extra money, NHS mortality rates are declining no faster than before. By the way, the extra £1 million for medical research was first announced last year. The Select Committee on Education and Skills says that school standards are not improving as fast as they were. People up and down the country who are struggling to find a decent school place or campaigning to keep their local hospital open or sitting in traffic on congested roads are entitled to ask: where has all the money gone?
	The Chancellor is trying to persuade the public that he is the change that they are crying out for. He lets it be known with nods and winks that he will end the spin and eye-catching initiatives of the Blair years, but let there be no mistake: they were his years too; the Blair-Brown years were the years of the clunking fist. The hospital cuts are the Chancellor's cuts, the failing schools are his failures, and the pensions that were destroyed were destroyed by him. The truth is that Labour can be new only once. If the public want change, they will have to vote for it.
	Let us see whether the Chancellor can really break with his past and be different from the Prime Minister. I have four straight questions, to which I hope he will give four straight answers. First, will the Chancellor confirm what the European Commission has said—that this year Britain has grown more slowly than 21 of the 25 EU member states? Secondly, will he acknowledge that in the past year our country has recorded the largest rise in unemployment in the developed world? Thirdly, does he accept that Britain is set to have the largest structural deficit of any major European economy? Fourthly, will he admit that, in an age of prosperity, real living standards in Britain are now falling?
	Those are four simple questions, so let us see whether the Chancellor can give us four straight answers. Let us see whether the clunking fist can change.

Kenneth Clarke: Does the Chancellor accept that, although it is true that he has not destroyed the record of growth, stability and low inflation that he inherited in 1997, he is only extending our record-breaking period of growth and stability on a sea of mounting public debt and consumer debt, to which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has already referred. If the Chancellor's successor believes the extravagantly optimistic descriptions of the public finances that the right hon. Gentleman has just given, he will make serious policy errors. Does the Chancellor accept that his fiscal rules are now lost in a maze of creative accounting and absurd assumptions about the date of the cycle? Even in his pre-Budget reports, every year he has to raise more tax from soft political targets, such as the oil industry last year or transport through green taxes this year. Does he accept that his legacy to his successor will be the toughest public spending round that we have seen for a very long time, in which his successor will have to keep public spending below the growth of the economy as a whole for the foreseeable future? Judging from the Chancellor's rhetoric, he will apparently give him no support in principle at all from his position as Prime Minister.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It was under his period at the Department for Workand Pensions that unemployment came down from1.6 million to the 900,000 of today. He is absolutely right that the central question is how to persuade people to get the skills for the future. He knows that the train to gain programme, with which he was involved in the DWP, is now equipping 90,000 men and women in the workplace with the necessary adult skills. Only yesterday, I visited a college where men and women who had previously thought that they would never get a skill were encouraged to come into college to acquire it. Many of them were talking about starting their own businesses in the future. That is the way forward. I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says about Oxford. He is an excellent representative of the constituency around which a huge amount of science and innovation is going on. I can give him the assurance that we will continue to invest in science and innovation in his constituency.

Gordon Brown: I will meet north Staffordshire MPs again—as my hon. Friend knows, I have met them before—to talk about the very issues of the future; not only manufacturing, but jobs in the area. As she knows, we have tried to get resources into both her constituency and the rest of the area, so that we can create new job opportunities. That is our aim. The way to respond to globalisation is to give people the skills and opportunities for the future, and that is what the statement is about.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend puts the point that, first, we should act on child poverty, and we will; and secondly, that we should act on science and innovation, and I have made announcements today about what we will do. Thirdly, he rightly raises the question of the future financial framework for Northern Ireland. I have put proposals to the Northern Ireland parties, and I was grateful to him for attending the meeting when we discussed those matters. I am prepared to make a longer term settlement to the Northern Ireland Assembly, provided that it can be reconstituted by the agreement of all political parties. I look forward to further discussions with him and other Members of the Assembly about how we can expedite that process. We remain ready to give the financial support that is necessary, so that Northern Ireland, particularly its economy, can move forward as a result of the Assembly being reconstituted, and we will continue to make that offer.

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman will know that we introduced a varied licence fee, which is of benefit to people making choices in rural areas. That is one of ways that we have approached the issue. We have also put considerably more money into public transport, as a result of the decisions that we have made to allocate more resources in that area. For elderly people, of course, a national bus pass scheme will be introduced very soon. So we continue to look at what we can do to help rural areas. We continue to look at the variable elements of the vehicle excise duty system, and we continue to do more to provide for public transport in constituencies such as his.

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that there was an election in October 1997. In fact, we were elected in May 1997. The figures for May 1997 show that 1,826 people were unemployed there, while the latest figures, from October 2006, show that 1,535 were unemployed. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as a reasonable man, that in the period we have been in government, unemployment has fallen in his constituency.
	As far as the general situation is concerned, I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that 1.6 million people were unemployed when we came to power. The figure is now less than a million. He will also find that there were 26 million people in employment when we came to power, whereas there were 29 million at the last count. Over the past nine years, unemployment has fallen and employment has gone up substantially —[ Interruption. ] If the Conservatives want a debate on unemployment, Labour Members would welcome it. Conservative Members might then explain why, when they say that they are attacking unemployment, they spend most of their time attacking the new deal, which is designed to stop unemployment.

Angus Robertson: I welcome debates on European business on the Floor of the House, but may I raise an issue that I have raised with the Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), and in previous debates? It concerns timing. Today's debate coincides with the start, in15 minutes' time, of a meeting of the European Scrutiny Committee. How can Members on either side of the House who have a particular interest in European business possibly be in two places at the same time?

Michael Ancram: Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of the Council to reassert what was admitted at the time—that the Dutch and French referendums, which resulted in a "no" vote in 2005, effectively meant that the European constitution was well and truly dead? What does she intend to do to thwart the declared intention of the German Chancellor to use the German presidency to breathe new life into it?

John Redwood: Will the Foreign Secretary give a promise to the House that she will not offer up the sacrifice of the veto in any more areas of policy whatever, and will she accept that we need to keep the veto powers that we hold?

Margaret Beckett: Not in the very near future. It is legitimate for my hon. Friend to poke fun at that publication, but all that was discussed was how we communicate the good news about Europe as well as the bad news, which is zealously communicated by everyone who can do so.
	The strategically important countries that we are discussing will be our neighbours, and they will play a pivotal role in our future, whatever decisions Europe makes. The choice facing us is what that role will be. It is in all our interests that they should become closer, stronger, richer and more reliable allies. That being the case, it would be foolhardy in the extreme to turnour back on what has proved to be one of the best ways of ensuring that outcome. The prospect of EU enlargement is probably the most powerful example of so-called soft power available to any country or international organisation.
	In all too recent history, for example, the Balkans have been a crucible of violence and instability in the heart of Europe. Indeed, there are still significant EU and NATO forces in the region. We therefore have a direct interest in tackling Balkan insecurity and encouraging those states further down the path of political and economic reform. Croatia is showing the way for others in the region by making the necessary reforms. It has low inflation, a stable currency, and rapid economic growth. It has bright, hard-working young people and strong scientific credentials. It has taken on international responsibilities by, for example, sending peacekeepers to Afghanistan and working with British police, among, others, to fight drug smuggling and money laundering. To see how far Croatia has come, it is worth noting that although it is little more than a decade since a massive war, every year more than 250,000 British tourists choose to go there on holiday. Of course there are more conditions that Croatia must meet, particularly in reform of the judiciary and the fight against corruption, but it is on the right path, and it is on that path because of the prospect of enlargement.
	It is worth being frank with each other at this point. There are some in Europe who have no problem with Croatia joining the EU but who do have a very real problem with Turkey joining, yet the strategic case for Turkish membership is at least as compelling as it is for any other country—in fact, probably much more so. Just like any other country, Turkey must fulfil its obligations to the EU. In the case of the Ankara protocol, Turkey has not yet done so and it is right that the EU should give a clear response. But that response should be proportionate and should be designed to get Turkey to fulfil its obligations and maintain the momentum of reform. It should not be a pretext for derailing negotiations. We need to agree and set out clearly what we expect Turkey to do. It is then up to Turkey to decide how quickly to reform and progress towards accession.
	We, the UK Government, judge that the current measures tabled by the European Commission are too harsh and risk being counterproductive. That would be a very poor result for the people of Turkey. It would also be a very poor result for Europe. Look at some of the strategic challenges that we are facing: increasing global competition from Asia; insecurity in our energy supplies; seemingly intractable problems in the middle east; rising extremism trying to drive Muslims and non-Muslims apart; an ageing population and a looming pensions crisis; the desire for Europe to play a more active role beyond its borders; and both at those borders and within them, the need to tackle drugs, organised crime and illegal migration.
	Turkey could play an immensely positive role in tackling all these challenges. It has a dynamic economy that is on track to attract US$20 billion in inward investment this year. It is already a major transit country for oil and gas and is set to be a crucial energy corridor into Europe. It has a network of relationships with countries in the middle east, including Syria and Iran, which no current EU member state can match. It has a young and increasingly educated work force, and larger armed forces than any other European country. It has shown that it can deliver real successes, working with us, on tackling terrorism, organised crime, illegal migration and trafficking. Perhaps most of all, at a time when some people are peddling the idea of an inevitable clash of civilisations, it is an immensely powerful symbol that European values can be Muslim values and vice versa.

Daniel Kawczynski: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary. She mentioned illegal immigration. Many Maltese MPs have spoken to me, saying that their country is being swamped by illegal immigrants from north Africa, particularly from Libya, and cannot cope. What plans does the right hon. Lady have to help our strategic ally in the Mediterranean to cope with the vast numbers coming over?

Margaret Beckett: The Government have always opposed the notion that the break-up of Iraq would be in the interests of Iraq or of other states in the region. Indeed, we believe it could cause substantial problems, and there are many people in Iraq who share that view.
	There is an argument that says that since we already working so well with many of the countries that still want to join the EU, we do not need to follow through on our promises of enlargement or the prospect of enlargement. That seems to me to be both a dangerous and an incredibly short-sighted argument. We should not kid ourselves. The foundation of the extraordinary "soft power" of the EU to which I referred earlier, and the reason why more than any other international organisation it has transformed the world around it, has been the prospect of full membership. In the case of Turkey or Croatia, offering them anything else at this stage would be to go back on our word. For other countries, if we want to encourage them down the right road which is in their interests and ours, we cannot rule out that ultimate destination.
	The main story at the European Council next week will almost certainly be enlargement. European leaders can choose to keep the door open to their neighbours, fulfilling our promises, helping those countries to continue political and economic reforms, and stressing the need for them to meet strict conditions and obligations. Over a period of time we could draw these strategically vital countries ever closer until they were in a position to become members of the European Union, or we could push them away. The Government are clear which is the direction in which Europe must go. That is the message that we will be taking, with, I think and hope, the full support of the House to Brussels next week.

Graham Brady: We join the Foreign Secretary in her comments about the importance of enlargement and in hoping for new impetus to achieve the necessary improvements in the emissions trading scheme and for developmentin Africa. We also strongly support the broad thrustof her comments about the positive results that enlargement has brought to so many member states joining the European Union.
	This EU affairs debate comes at a critical time in the development of the European Union and the position of the member states within it. A year and a half after the French and the Dutch rejected the proposed constitution, we are approaching what was supposed to be the crescendo of a massive national debate about the future of the EU—a debate that the Government promised to lead. Instead, in the words of the European Scrutiny Committee:
	"the Government's general position appears to be to shelter behind the obvious absence of any consensus on the future of Europe and to say that it will inform the House of its views once there is one".
	Meanwhile, the German Government are preparing to try to salvage as much of the constitution as possible during their forthcoming EU presidency. French politicians are talking about a mini treaty that would similarly increase the powers of the EU, with an EU Foreign Minister, a permanent President and the surrender of national vetoes, but in the hope that approval could be slipped through in parliamentary votes without the need for further referendums.

Graham Brady: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. That is a good illustration of how the European Union does not necessarily always get things right and why it should focus on ensuring that it achieves what it can using current powers and existing treaties—doing so properly and correctly instead of making ambitious proposals for new treaties and constitutions.
	When the Foreign Secretary was recently away in India, the press reported that the Minister for Europe, in what was described as a private speech, suggested that the Government would row in behind the kind of mini treaty favoured by the French, signalling that further vetoes would be given up.

Graham Brady: The Minister shakes his head. However, given that the Foreign Secretary has confirmed to me in a written answer that the right hon. Gentleman reports both to her and directly to the Prime Minister, we have to take such signals seriously. I hope that he will clarify the point when he winds up.
	We have had to wait with bated breath for any official indication of the Government's position on the future powers and shape of the European Union. Yesterday, the Minister finally issued a written statement setting out in very vague terms what he called
	"the principles that will underpin"
	the British contribution to the German presidency's consultations on the future of Europe. The statement tells us:
	"We will...favour proposals that modernise the workings of the EU so that it is better equipped to meet both today's and future challenges".
	However, it does not tell us whether that means that the Government are preparing to support the "constitution lite", or slimmed-down mini treaty, proposed by Mr. Sarkozy or Angela Merkel, with further extensions to qualified majority voting and an EU foreign minister. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary could tell us now, or the Minister could tell us when he winds up, exactly where the Government stand.

Ian Davidson: May I urge the hon. Gentleman not to read too much into statements made by the Minister for Europe when the Foreign Secretary is in India? After all, when the cat is away, other things get said.
	Does it remain the Opposition's position that they will call for a referendum on any mini constitution that is proposed by the Commission?

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am confident that the Minister for Europe is a man, not a mouse, even though he does not necessarily find such confidence on the Benches behind him. I am happy to give the assurance that it is our position that were the Government to seek approval for a treaty that transferred further powers to the EU, we would indeed seek a referendum. I hope that the Government would accept that it was necessary to have the explicit support and approval of the British people.
	Crucially, if the Government are preparing to back a revised constitution, the Foreign Secretary should give an unequivocal assurance—the same assurance that I was just happy to give on behalf of the Opposition—that it remains the Government's policy to hold a referendum to allow the British people to decide.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend makes his point. I think that they are getting on a little better today—almost as well as Michael Portillo and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) when they sit on the sofa together, but not quite.
	The Foreign Secretary says that the constitutional and institutional future of Europe will not feature on the agenda of the Council that is approaching. Would it not be wise, however, for the Government to set out our position clearly prior to the start of the German presidency, so that we can try to influence the shape that those discussions will take when the presidency begins?
	The unresolved institutional debate is the backdrop to a Council agenda that includes some vital questions for the EU to address. On these Benches, as the Foreign Secretary was good enough to acknowledge, we have always been stalwart supporters of EU enlargement. We believe that the support and nurturing of new democracies, whether in southern or in central and eastern Europe, has perhaps been the most positive contribution that the EU has made. The Foreign Secretary spoke about the important strides forward that have already been taken by Bulgaria and Romania, while indicating that further progress is needed. The Council will rightly welcome the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, but it will do so at a time when the future enlargement of the EU is more controversial than it has ever been.
	In this country, both the major parties have recognised the importance of encouraging Turkey to look to the west and the role that the process of EU accession could play in achieving that. Indeed, the opening of Turkish accession talks was perhaps the only significant achievement of the last British presidency of the EU, and we gave the Government full credit for that. We share the Foreign Secretary's view that the decision to suspend so many chapters of the accession negotiations is regrettable and is a major setback. It is essential that more progress should be made towards achieving normal relations between Turkey and Cyprus, but it is surely the case that the prospect and process of EU accession is an important lever to help to achieve that end—as it would be for further improvements in democracy and freedom in Turkey.
	We also hope to see continuing progress in relation to Croatia and the western Balkans, and real efforts to improve cooperation with and support for neighbours of the EU in Ukraine, Belarus and beyond.

Graham Brady: My central heating boiler has just broken down, so I will happily join the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming an influx of plumbers into the country—they are much needed.
	I agree with the Foreign Secretary's general comments about the importance of enlargement, but there are those who are trying to tie future enlargement of the EU to acceptance of a constitution that has already been rejected by the electorate of two major EU nations, and which the Home Secretary described on Monday as "deceased, a dead parrot". It was therefore heartening to hear the Foreign Secretary making clear on "The Westminster Hour" this week her view that institutional reform is not essential. She said: "Some of this"—
	decision-making—
	"could become more difficult but it would be too much to say that we're not coping at the moment."
	She went on to say that things "are not too bad". When the Minister winds up, will he put the Government's view on the record and confirm that they do not regard institutional reform as essential and that they will continue to support the further enlargement that the Foreign Secretary and I agree is desirable, regardless of institutional change? That is contrary to the view that he expressed in his speech at the Institute for European Affairs in Dublin on 20 November 2006, when he said:
	"The current rules are unsustainable in a European Union of 25 states—let alone 27 or more."
	As the Foreign Secretary said, the Council will also tackle the controversial issue of EU involvement in decisions relating to justice, home affairs and immigration, and consider
	"progress achieved in implementing The Hague Programme".
	We believe that those matters are fundamental to national sovereignty. We agree with the Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, who said so clearly in the  Financial Times on 23 September:
	"The whole criminal justice area is an area of national sovereignty in which there are huge sensitivities."
	He set out a more practical, alternative approach, which Ministers here would do well to follow. He said:
	"My vision for Europe is that instead of constantly seeking to enlarge the competence of the union, that the justice and home affairs ministers should concentrate on practical measures of co-operation between states to enhance security and combat terrorism".
	As recently as last Thursday, when the House debated an EU Scrutiny Committee report, the British Government appeared incapable of setting out even their own position, insisting on leaving open the possibility of using the so-called passerelle. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), said that the Government's position was clear and that there was a "debate to be had". The Government's preferred outcome for that debate was unclear. However, after the meeting of the Home Affairs Council, the Home Secretary pronounced:
	"There's a clear and probably overwhelming majority against"
	giving up the veto. He continued:
	"That's our view ... We should not by using weasel words attempt to revisit this at a higher level when there's such a clear majority".
	Will the Minister for Europe confirm for the first time that the Government now regard the matter as closed and that they do not want proposals for surrendering the veto over justice and home affairs to be
	"revisited at a higher level"
	at next week's summit?
	The Foreign Secretary said that discussions would focus on immigration. Obviously, the Commission's forthcoming report will be on the agenda. Will the Minister for Europe give a little more insight into the Government's thinking? Will he state categorically, following the difficulties of recent years, that the Government's priority now is to reassert control over our borders and that, as far as the UK is concerned, border control will not become a shared competence?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the UK will oppose Commissioner Frattini's proposals for a "comprehensive migration policy" for the EU? Will the Government confirm that the proposed EU-wide criminal offence of employing irregular migrants is one of the first attempts by the EU to create criminal law using qualified majority voting, following the controversial ruling of the European Court of Justice last September?

Keith Vaz: No, I will not, as I have given way a lot on that point.
	My second point is on institutional reform. The constitution will not be the major feature of the European Council meeting, but the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West was right to raise the issue—although not at such great length. The fact remains that we need to address such matters. The Government's position is absolutely right: there is no need to resurrect the constitution as, clearly, this country has no appetite for a referendum, and I do not think that that would be successful. The French electorate have put paid to the European constitution for a long while. It is now a matter of negotiation and discussions between Heads of Government in the normal way.
	On institutional reform, however, we need to keep the British flag flying, as we should also lead the reform agenda. It is right to remind the House of the Prime Minister's many speeches about Europe being more acceptable to the British people if it reforms itself. Clearly, it will not reform itself, so we must lead that reform. When Bulgaria and Romania become members, the EU will have 27 countries. I have attended European Council meetings, as have other right hon. and hon. Members present. It will be impossible to get decisions made at such meetings with 27 Foreign Ministers,27 Prime Ministers and 27 Europe Ministers—along with all the Commissioners—sitting round the table putting their countries' positions.
	I therefore say to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe that if we need to move ahead in areas in which co-operation is possible, when that is in the national interest, we should do so, as long as it does not result in the need for treaty changes—if it does, obviously, it is a great constitutional issue. If the practicalities of the way in which Europe is governed are at issue, we must go ahead. We cannot leave the European Union in a position in which decisions cannot be made and the organisation is paralysed.
	That leads me to the issue of the Tampere agenda, which was agreed in 1999 and has now become the Hague formula—named after the city, not the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, who is in Pakistan—which is the agenda for justice and home affairs. Of what are we afraid? Surely we are in favour of controlling illegal migration, dealing with the drugs barons and controlling the trafficking of people. Of course we need to move forward on that agenda with our European partners. It would be astonishing if our security forces, the police and other agencies would not work in concert with the police, Interpol and the security services of other countries to deal with those three issues. What have people got against co-operation on that line?
	I have no problem with giving up the veto on those issues. In majority voting, we are always on the winning side. The Conservative Government gave up the veto and allowed us qualified majority voting more than any other Government in the history of this country. Under them, the veto disappeared out of the window on whole areas of policy. I have no problem with QMV in justice and home affairs. In this day and age and in this climate, it is vital that we are able to co-operate with our European partners. I will take the judgment of Ministers on that, however, as they are in possession of the information, and they know whether it is right to do so. There is the argument—if the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West looks at the figures on the number of times that we are on the winning side on QMV, he will be amazed at the statistics.
	My final point is on the Lisbon agenda, which was correctly raised by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, but, sadly, is not a matter that will occupy those in Brussels on 14 and 15 December. To my mind, it is the crucial agenda that Europe should follow. On the day of the pre-Budget report, it is important that we pause briefly to emphasise the importance of the Lisbon European Council, which was different from any other such meeting, as for the first time it set out strict and legitimate benchmarks against which countries are to be judged. The hon. Gentleman has an engaging smile, and when I asked him about our performance, he smiled. In fact, our performance is the best of the big countries in the European Union, thanks to the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the Lisbon agenda, we are the fourth best performer in Europe Germany is 10th and France is eighth. On practically every one of the targets, especially the employment targets, we are well ahead of our European competitors. It was the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Ed Balls), who ensured, while he was in Tokyo, that the derogation was agreed with Brussels so that we remain the financial capital of the world and keep New York at a far distance.

Michael Moore: That was an unfortunate and cynical calculation. Perhaps similar thoughts have crossed politicians' minds in this country in recent years.
	It is important for us not to concentrate on examining our constitutional navels. Europe must not lose sight of the need to address the delivery deficit which directly affects all the people of Europe. That means refocusing on the economic weaknesses that the Lisbon and Hampton Court agendas have sought to address, and, in the wake of the stark warnings in the Stern report, on tackling the urgent issue of climate change. Whatever the disappointments of the past six months, we should not blame the Finnish presidency, which for the most part has been left to deal with more immediate, although none the less important, issues. In particular, the issue of Turkish membership of the European Union has continued to be a key challenge for Europe, and controversy continues to be inextricably linked to the issue.
	The twin issues of relations with Cyprus and fundamental internal reforms continue to provide barriers to a smooth accession process, but those barriers must not come to be regarded as insurmountable. Turkey will have to open its ports and airports to Cypriot traffic, and further moves towards settling the Cyprus dispute are clearly a prerequisite for Turkish accession, as are measures to tackle the shocking human rights issues in the country. However, it is important that we reinforce our commitment to Turkish accession to the European Union. There ought to be no ideological or—despite what some may try to assert—religious barriers to Turkish membership of the Union. The issue of Turkish accession may prove to be the most difficult of the enlargements that Europe has undergone, but in the end a reformed, democratic Turkey will be stronger, and at the same time will strengthen the European Union. It must be worth the effort.
	Of course, the issue of Turkish membership is not the only matter of enlargement with which we are concerned. The enlargement process must continue in the Balkans, and we must reject any idea that the Union's absorption capacity precludes any further members from south-east Europe. The Balkans are a hugely important part of our continent and we are all affected by what happens there, as was demonstrated so disastrously in the 1990s. The legacy of those conflicts is still with us in Kosovo and Serbia, where the fragile state of affairs is testimony to the difficulties of overcoming conflict.
	The coming year will be important for Kosovo and Serbia, and we must hope that the Council will address these matters. There will be elections in Serbia in January, and the results of Kosovo's final-status process are expected shortly thereafter. It is important for Britain to speak strongly on the issue. Serbia's recent reassertion of its territorial claim to Kosovo means that there are tough times ahead for the region, but some form of internationally guaranteed independence for Kosovo is inevitable and vital. Serbia and its neighbours must recognise that. Moreover, all the aspirant countries in the region must recognise their continuing obligations to satisfy international demands relating to the war crimes committed during the bloody conflict of a decade ago.
	A strong approach is essential, but it is also crucial that the Union continues to offer the carrot of membership to the region as the countries continue to undergo the difficult process of recovery and reconciliation. Accession and its economic and political benefits remain an important prospective reward for the difficult choices and the work involved. For the Union, it will represent the chance finally to unite all the different corners of Europe in a peaceful and prosperous continent, and the hope of burying the terrible legacy of Europe's 20th-century conflicts in the process.
	Despite its aspirations, the European Union's external relations have at times been fragmented and haphazard in recent years, not least owing to the divisions caused by the Iraq war. Increasingly, however, it is becoming apparent in both Europe and Washington that European involvement is a crucial component of international affairs. We therefore need to develop Europe's capability in its external relations policy. That requires difficult choices on the part of member state Governments, not least the British Government. We need to rebalance our British foreign policy, away from dependence on taking Washington's lead and towards greater influence within Europe. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the middle east, where the United Kingdom appears to have been completely bypassed by the recent Spanish, French and Italian peace initiative. Current international policy towards Israel-Palestine is in danger of irreversible failure, and we need a serious rethinking of that policy if we are to see a solution.
	Europe has an important role in the region, and in resolving that conflict. The EU is the largest aid donor to the Palestinians. In 2005 it gave half a billion euros, and the figure for 2006 is expected to be even higher. In Lebanon, too, Europe is a key donor, pledging€100 million following the disastrous conflict earlier this year. The Union also has an important economic relationship with Israel through the association agreement. We are Israel's largest trading partner, representing 35 per cent. of its trade—a full 10 per cent. more than its trade with the United States.
	Europe therefore has the motive, which is the crisis in our neighbourhood, and the means, which is our economic influence in the region, to play a greater role. For too long we have been the banker for a failed international approach to the conflict, providing hundreds of millions of pounds to rebuild what has just been destroyed in the most recent confrontation. That money, rather than genuinely developing Palestine and Israel by reversing their descent into poverty, is in essence paying the cost of each failed military action.
	The Franco-Spanish initiative was welcome and served to remind us how far removed we are from the road map, but it did not set out a new strategy, and without support from countries across the Union—including Britain—it is likely to become just another failed initiative. What we need is a new common European position on Israel-Palestine, and such an approach must continue to be based on the Quartet's principles to create a secure and stable state for both Israel and Palestine. Europe must use its economic and geographic influence, backed up by a willingness to be part of the necessary security measures, to ensure that we get a proper and sustainable peace in the region. Unilateral UK efforts or trilateral European efforts are unlikely to succeed. The European Union is the formal member of the Quartet; it must act in accordance with that fact, and not simply continue to bankroll an increasingly failed policy over which it has limited influence.
	There must also be a new strategy on Russia. The current approach is clearly insufficient. We in Britain are currently rightly concerned about the events surrounding the death of Mr. Litvinenko. We welcome the statements of the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary that diplomatic protocols will not be a bar to a full and thorough investigation, but there must be some concern following Russian statements that there will be no extradition of any suspects to the United Kingdom and severe limitations on the work carried out by Scotland Yard detectives in Russia. We must of course be careful not to point the finger of blame at Russia itself, but the Russian authorities must also recognise Britain's legitimate need to investigate Mr. Litvinenko's death without hindrance.

William Cash: As we approach the 50th anniversary of the treaty of Rome, I would like to take the opportunity of adopting a landscape view, sketching out some of the implications to reflect the situation as we now find it. First, I am bound to say that disarray among member states is apparent not just in respect of Iraq a few years ago when the situation became terminal for foreign policy and defence, but in respect of institutional changes as promulgated by proposals for a European constitution. We have had the referendums in France and the Netherlands, which went against the constitution, and a series of other rejected referendums in Denmark and Ireland, for example, that have been reorganised—with a lot of threats and blackmail—in order to get the right result. Of course, one cannot do that with a country like France. I am certain that it would not happen in this country either, as it would be so alien to the British tradition that serious problems would be caused.
	Just from sketching out those indicative problems, it is quite clear that the European Union is not working. I am interested in which way the future Prime Minister—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—is likely to go on this subject. Above all else, he is a pragmatist. It is possible to make inferences from the people intimately around him, from his first statement on the Bank of England, from the economic tests, from the direction in which he has pitched his economic policies towards a more transatlantic approach and from the views of commentators such as Robert Peston and Tom Bower. They all provide some indication that under the presidency— [Interruption.] That was a Freudian slip, as I meant the prime ministership of the current Chancellor. As I have made clear on several occasions, Conservative Members need to be aware that the Chancellor might do a mini-Peter Shore. My old friend, now Lord Shore, was a strong opponent of further integration. It would not be quite the same thing, but I believe that the direction is likely to be sceptical.
	I remember challenging the current Chancellor when he was the shadow Chancellor, accusing him of being in favour in principle of economic and monetary union. He said, "Yes, I am", but then he said, "and I happen to agree with your Chancellor of the Exchequer"—namely, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Well, I think things have changed considerably since then and we need to be conscious of that change. I mention that because, fundamentally, any responsible Government have to look at the situation as it really is—and it is not working: Europe is not working.
	We also need to reflect on what Europe affects. Despite the desire of many people to shove some of this under the carpet, the reality is that in the real world the EU affects a vast amount of what goes on for our constituents. I would challenge anyone to try to tell me anything that it did not affect. That is all driven by a harmonised legal system and majority voting.
	As I said in an intervention, the Court of Justice carries with it a contradiction: in most cases people do not get what they would voluntarily want if they exercised their freedom of choice in the ballot box, by virtue of which they choose representatives in this Parliament, which legislates on their behalf. Yet we know perfectly well that, if hon. Members vote against a directive or a regulation in the European Standing Committee, which has happened on occasion, the decision is automatically overturned on the Floor of the House. The scrutiny process is wanting in many respects, and it is better than in most other member states.
	As I said in an intervention on the Foreign Secretary, the EU is undemocratic and unaccountable. There are ways to remedy that, and I need not rehearse my arguments on the supremacy of Parliament provisions that I proposed to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. I am very glad to say that Conservative Front Benchers and Whips agreed to support those provisions and went so far as to provide Tellers for what was a Back-Bench amendment, even though50 hon. Members had signed up to it on the amendment paper.
	My amendment was pursued as an anchor in that Bill, which ranges widely across a raft of measures and many Departments, and it was followed up in the House of Lords by a whipped vote, when the Chief Whip and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lords went through the Lobby with many of our noble Friends. Although we did not win the vote in either House, the anchor that those provisions representin sustaining the democratic principles on which Parliament is based is a matter for congratulation and applause for not only the Whips Office but the current leadership—provided, of course, that that anchor remains firmly fixed where it was in June. I should not like to see it dragged in any direction, and I would strongly advise the leadership to include it in the manifesto, when it comes.
	I have taken this overall position both on the landscape and on the principle of parliamentary supremacy, which is an essential issue not only for the House but for Europe as a whole. In fact, I would go further and extend the landscape across the whole globe. Given that many people have an aspiration for the EU to operate on the scale of 450 million peoplein sophisticated, industrialised countries, with new countries coming in because of enlargement, it is clearly a matter of vast importance that the system is truly democratic and truly accountable, and it is not.
	I need not rehearse all the arguments or mention the Court of Auditors reports, the failures of the European Commission periodically and the real problems that lie at the heart of the system, which needs to be reformed into an association of nation states. The system must be fully democratic, with co-operation where necessary, on the principle of subsidiarity—whatever that word means; it depends on whom one speaks to—and it must operate in a way that genuinely allows freedom of speech and the freedom of markets to be determined by freedom of choice. That must lie at the heart of the democratic system. Accountability ultimately depends on that freedom of choice.

William Cash: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. It would be difficult to say that this is not a party political matter, but it is also right for me to say that this is a matter of such importance that it is essential that we have an understanding on both sides of the House about the importance of the principles that I have enunciated. I have demonstrated the lack of democracy and I could enlarge on that. There are so many instances of proof. It is a matter of overriding national interest that we get this right.
	I asked myself, "Where are the problems and difficulties that arise?" In the context of the system that now exists, they reside in most of the other member states. In Germany, for example, there has recently been a challenge to the European constitution through the German constitutional court, which has decided to put the matter to one side for the time being, because there are political questions that have yet to be resolved. However, the court did not suggest that it thought that the European constitution was consistent with the German constitution. In fact, I get the impression that it does not think that it is consistent, but it wants to put that on one side until the political questions are resolved during the course of the German presidency.
	What is the German presidency after? In my opinion—I know that this is controversial, but I have said it before—the German nation, in its own vital national interests, believes in a concentric circles plan. Michael Mertes, who devised the plan, had a clear idea of it. I discussed it with him at great length on a number of occasions. The indications are that, whether by design or otherwise, Germany would end up by having a disproportionate amount of dominance in a Europe dominated by the system of qualified majority voting. Those countries that are economically or politically dependent on Germany, which includes most of the new entrants, would be in a difficult position. How would they be able to vote against a country to which they were so deeply committed economically? I am not trying to evoke dark impressions of the past. I am saying that there is a realistic problem, which some people want to push under the carpet, but which has to be considered responsibly in this Parliament, which represents a system of democracy and accountability.
	We know that Chancellor Merkel intends to start the revival process in January. We understand that she wants a road map, leaving it to the subsequent presidency to take things forward. Apparently she is not optimistic about the German presidency solving the constitutional issue, but the fact is that she wants to kick-start the process. She is also against cherry-picking, or, in other words, taking bits and pieces, like Nicolas Sarkozy. She is against him on that. However, the reality is that underneath, there is a continuing commitment in Germany, in the Chancellery, to the idea of a European constitution and all the problems that will flow from it.
	There are two contenders for the presidency of France. One is Ségolène Royal. I happen to be a strong and fervent admirer of France. My father is buried there. He was killed in 1944, in the war, fighting for liberty. Ségolène Royal says that she does not want a two-speed Europe. However, in effect, she wants a hard-core Europe, relaunched with Germany, Italy and Spain—so we are told. She has expressed considerable concern about the American influence. She says that it is possible to have treaties within the treaty among four nations. I say that she said that, but actually it was said on her behalf. However, I do not think that we can have any doubt about the interpretation of that. Mr. Savary, who is her spokesman, also said that goals should include convergence of tax and social security and that there would be talks on a European army, which would not replace national armies.
	So, we have a mixed picture—in France, Germany, the Netherlands and elsewhere in the Nordic countries. It is not just a mixed picture, but a picture of confusion and uncertainty that makes the disintegration of the eurozone more likely. That will be driven by an implosion, with problems due to high unemployment of the kind that we have seen in Paris, Lyon, Hungary and elsewhere. The system will not work.
	This country has been denied a referendum. Apparently, the Prime Minister is in favour of the European treaty, but he will not bring forward another European Union Bill. He says that treaties cannot be implemented in part, but what kind of treaty will there be? People can look to the future against the background of the considerable differences that exist, such as Mr. Sarkozy suggesting that we would want a legal personality for the Union, that we should have more majority voting and that there should be a Foreign Minister. As I put it to the Prime Minister—I think that he saw a googly coming and decided just to play it straight back, if he could—as Germany is prohibited from having a nuclear weapon by the NATO treaty, but we are committed by article 5 of that treaty to a joint alliance in the defence of our interests, if NATO and Germany are going further abroad and there is talk of the European Union supplementing or subordinating our position on the United Nations Security Council with a European Foreign Minister, a European foreign policy and a European security and defence policy could not work because of such conflicting internal collisions.
	The whole problem with Europe is that it does not work—it needs to be remedied. It is undemocratic and it needs to be reformed. If people are not prepared to listen, yet we put our case in a measured and proper manner, there will be no option but to withdraw. However, I set that against the landscape that I have described. It is not an objective in itself—

Gisela Stuart: I absolutely agree that that is the danger.
	One of the features of these debates is that they are very much like groundhog day. We never get to grips with the way in which the European Union really works because we are dealing with such a long-term process. It was mentioned earlier that if one wants to get something on the agenda, one has to flag it up about two years in advance.
	It is easy to overlook the way in which the process by which the European Union forms its institutions actually works. There is no single voice with any cohesion within the Union, other than the one calling for deeper European integration, and it is foolish to think otherwise. There are two ways of achieving that deeper integration. The first is to use crises, and the other is to create new institutions. Rather than anyone saying, "On this occasion, we will deal with the problem in hand," crises, whether it be a terrorist attack or bird flu, are used as a pretext for setting up structures that lead to deeper integration. New institutions always start with a particular function but end up doing something quite different. My objection to that is the absence of honesty; what is proposed may be fine, but we should be up front about it.
	It is interesting to follow the path of the European Defence Agency, an institution that is just emerging as something quite different from what it was meant to be. I hope that the Government will keep a close eye on it to ensure that it delivers what it was originally meant to deliver. It is a bit like a mixture of Cardinal Newman and Kevin Costner's character in "Field of Dreams". The European Union believes the saying, "Build it and they will come". Cardinal Newman believed that it did not matter how small the step was, as long as it was a step forward, and that applies to attitudes to deeper integration, too—one must never turn back, because to do so is to be regarded a heretic.
	The European Defence Agency started life just before the European Convention process started in 2003. Defence has largely been outside the treaty obligations. Any real, big progress in defence co-operation has always occurred when the UK and France decided to do something, and things would move on from there. It was during work on the Convention in 2003 that it was first rumoured that a new agency was to be set up. I thought that it was an extremely good idea, because it was to be called the European military capability agency, and it was supposed to identify and monitor military capacity. When it was first set up, the UK Government were most concerned that it was the Commission's way of making defence procurement a Commission responsibility through the back door, but that was never mentioned, and the agency was set up. It was a key part of the constitutional treaty, and although the treaty was rejected, we went ahead with the agency because the truth was that we did not need the treaty provisions to set it up. The UK was comforted by the thought that it was run by a Brit.
	If one looks into the way in which the agency operates, there is still a hell of a lot of duplication going on. It seems to be leading to greater protectionism, too. It has a budget of €22 million for 2007, which, in defence terms, is chickenfeed. The United States of America spends $18 million a month supporting Pakistan in its counter-terrorism activities, so €22 million for the whole of Europe is not very much. However, what the agency does with that small sum is bicker and argue. Four or five years after its original, very helpful, purpose was decided on, it is enlightening to look at the agency's report on what it thinks that it has achieved.
	The agency thought that its major achievement was
	"a Code of Conduct on Defence Procurement",
	which shows that it concerns itself with procurement, rather than with conducting a real audit of the capabilities and shortcomings across Europe, or with setting out who needs to do what. The agency claims that its website is a big achievement, and that its
	"Electronic Bulletin Board now carries details of over 60 contracting opportunities".
	The agency
	"supports the consensus on the need for less duplication, more specialisation and more interdependence in the European Defence Technological and Industrial base",
	but it goes on to say that it supports
	"less dependence on non-European sources for key technologies."
	That was not the original idea; the original idea was to make the money spent far more effective by making sure that, when a country purchases something, it fits in with what is needed across Europe. That does not mean that there should be only European purchasing, or that we should become protectionist. The agency regards it as one of its main achievements to have made things much more protectionist. Towards the end of the document, under the heading, "Some negatives", the agency casually mentions that
	"There have also been disappointments to set against these encouraging developments. Principally, we still lack evidence of real readiness on the part of "
	member states
	"to take significant steps towards repairing the now familiar capability gaps in any early time-frame."
	Many Europeans regard the institutions as a huge achievement, but all that we have done is set up a bureaucracy that bickers about how much money it spends. The UK is comfortable with the agency, because it was headed by a Brit but, in its own words, it has failed to address the problem that the EU must confront if it wants to be a serious player in defence. It must start spending more on defence—despite all the protestations, defence spending continues to go down—and rather than fighting NATO, it must start to work with it.
	The Foreign Affairs Committee has just returned from Afghanistan. The operation there is not a proper NATO operation but a balkanisation of NATO troops. Command is provided by the international security assistance force, but the national units protect their own turf, and in some cases they are sitting on their hands. In Riga, we did not secure the advances that we wanted, but the good Europeans are comfortable in the knowledge that they have created an institution. That happens repeatedly, so I urge Ministers to demonstrate at the Council the healthy pragmatism for which the Brits are renowned. What is the purpose of the institutions that we have set up, and are they delivering it? For most partners, the setting up of institutions and initiatives is a mechanism to achieve deeper integration. I will admit that I am wrong the minute that a French or German politician says that there are some EU functions that are better performed by the nation states. But no one says so, as there is a continuous push for deeper integration.
	I care about the issue—and this is where I have a deep disagreement with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—because I do not want to return to an association of trading states. The EU should have political and trade functions, and it should work effectively. It appears, however, that with every step, we are moving further away from the people who have given us their consent. Their disillusion with the EU has deepened, because it is not delivering. The EU therefore risks falling apart, which would be a matter of deep regret.
	I wish the Minister fair speed at the European Council, and I look forward to his response, particularly on Kosovo and energy.

Richard Spring: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Turkey is a secular nation. For all its human rights and religious minority difficulties, it is moving in the right direction. A snub at this point may well have that effect, with awful consequences not only in Turkey but in the surrounding Islamic countries, which would draw a clear message from it.
	I should like to refer to another country on the borders of the European Union—Ukraine. Many of the states of central Europe were offered the prospect of membership of the EU and NATO as an ultimate reward for their diligent pursuit of democratic and market reforms, but Ukraine received no such serious offer after it had declared independence. That has rendered its transition that much harder and given political ammunition to those in Ukraine with a deep mistrust of the west. Western scepticism may thus have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
	The orange revolution constituted a critical point of departure in the EU's new relationship with Ukraine. Over the past year, there has been a concerted effort to upgrade the EU-Ukrainian relationship, despite persistent political instability in Ukraine. That includes pressure on it in terms of creating a market economy, making progress on anti-dumping legislation, efforts to simplify visa rules, and a feasibility study on an eventual free trade agreement. The idea that this should, in stockbroking language, be "all or none" is irrelevant. In relation to a country such as Ukraine, which is of huge geopolitical significance given all the pressures, particularly from Russia in the north, we should have flexible arrangements that enable it to participate in aspects of life within the EU in order to encourage it to make progress on democratic practices, human rights and opening its markets without ultimately requiring full EU membership. Such flexible arrangements would work much more satisfactorily in the globalised world that we inhabit.
	The EU considers Ukraine to be a priority partner country and calls for an increasingly close relationship. Indeed, an EU/Ukraine summit took place in the autumn of this year. It is very important that the country be stable and successful. For example, a large amount of the energy supplies that come westwards from Russia come through Ukraine. Regardless of the outstanding problems, we should extend the hand of friendship to Ukraine at this time and try to develop these relationships. Ukrainians look to this country to lead on the matter. Many have contributed to the economic life of this country and listed some of their companies on the London stock exchange. They feel comfortable in this country and look to us to take a more pragmatic view than some of our European partners of the European Union and its future.
	Let me consider two other countries that have been especially problematic. Other hon. Members have commented on Croatia and the western Balkans. However, I should like to consider the problem of Moldova, which is a close neighbour of existing EU countries. In February 2005, the EU and Moldova adopted a bilateral action plan. It is a political document that sets out strategic objectives to be fulfilled over a time frame of three years. It covers strengthening administrative and judicial capacity, respect for freedom of expression and freedom of the media. Furthermore, there are issues linked to border management and the fight against trafficking and organised crime. Of course, it is a poor country with a low standard of living, yet we need to encourage it to undergo reforms.
	Moldovans are in a difficult position because they are so dependent on the Russians. We should assist them through opening up our markets and encouraging investment and other reforms so that their dependence on Russia lessens and they become more integrated with the more sophisticated economies to their west.
	The same applies to Belarus. That country is in a difficult position through an unsatisfactory political process. Again, the assistance that the EU pledged through social and economic development needs tobe provided in a future European neighbourhood partnership agreement. We have learned in the past few years that we cannot escape the problems of our neighbours. If there are problems in those countries, we get migratory flows and all the attendant difficulties.
	Trying to find a way forward in the western Balkans, trying to find a way of securing Turkey's accession to the EU and stretching out the hand of friendship to Ukraine to involve it more in the western side of Europe and our conduct of our national lives is in our interests. From a strategic, security and economic point of view, those countries will be increasingly dependent on us. We should encourage them to undertake the reforms that will enable them eventually to have a much improved standard of living, give their people hope, and, in doing that, underpin democratic standards in their countries. The people of these countries would welcome that.

Kelvin Hopkins: I apologise for being unable to be here for some of the early part of the debate.
	It is a great pleasure to participate in such debates, which always constitute a learning experience for me, and possibly for others, because we always hear something new. However, we inevitably have to say some things more than once, and I regret to say that I wish to repeat some points that I have made previously because they bear restating.
	I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on her concern about the lack of sceptical voices at European Commission level and in the European institutions. It is as though the structures are organised in such a way that no dissenting voice is heard. My party introduced proportional representation on a regional basis for elections to the European Parliament. One of the effects was to eliminate all the Eurosceptic voices from our delegation. I do not know whether our leaders intended that, but that was the result. We now have universal Euro support among the Labour Members of the European Parliament, and that is worrying.
	Many millions—sometimes majorities—of people in European Union nations are sceptical about the European Union's actions, what their leaders do on their behalf and, especially, what the Commission does. They should have a voice. If the current position continues, deep disillusion could set in with the idea of co-operating in Europe. That would be damaging even for those who, like me, oppose the European Union as such. I have always believed that we should have a looser association of member states, co-operating voluntarily but retaining our national democracies, so that we can retain our distinctive choices about how we govern ourselves and how we are governed while working in a brotherly—I would personally say comradely—way with people in other member states. I have contact with representatives of political parties of the left in Scandinavia, Germany and elsewhere. We have some very productive discussions, but we are sceptical about the European Union.
	With the election of Angela Merkel as the new German Chancellor, we have seen another federalist obsessive taking significant power and driving towards a future for the European Union about which I have profound doubts. She seems determined to bury the independence of member states and the democratic rights of their citizens in a much more bureaucratic, authoritarian state of Europe. She also wants to revive the European constitution. Some months ago, a parliamentary colleague clapped his hand on my shoulder and said, "Now that we are not joining the euro and the European constitution is dead, nothing divides us." He said that with a smile on his face. I replied that I hoped that that was the case, but unfortunately it does not seem to be because there are people—Angela Merkel is one of them—who are determined to revive the constitution and to drive everyone to join the eurozone, which would be absolutely disastrous.
	The system of different countries having the European presidency for six months gives each country its moment of glory and influence, and that is fine. However, in relation to our discussing how strong borders should be, or whether they should be porous or almost non-existent, Finland has the presidency at the moment, and it does not worry about borders. The Finns told me that people do not want to go to Finland because it is a very cold country with an extremely difficult language—that is what Finnish politicians say. However, people do want to go to other countries in the European Union. The countries that are affected by changes in the strength of borders need to have more influence in the debate; they should have a bigger say in what goes on than those who are either unaffected or keen to have less policing on their borders because they want to move away from the poorer countries towards the richer countries. It is understandable for the people of those countries to take that view.
	The next country to hold the presidency will be Germany, which seems determined to revive the apparently dead parrot—this one might still have some life in it—of the European constitution. I urge my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, who will be negotiating on our behalf, to uphold the traditional British position of saying no to a federal state and yes to an association of independent member states, and to ensure that that is what the future of Europe is all about.

Kelvin Hopkins: I note the hon. Gentleman's comment from a sedentary position. Nevertheless, the economy has done well in recent years, and we must give credit to the Chancellor for presiding over that success. His greatest success, however, is that he and the Treasury kept us out of the eurozone—a splendid decision that I fully support. In doing so, he has saved the British economy an enormous amount of difficulty— [Interruption.] Well, it is at least possible that he may soon be the Prime Minister, and I hope that he can continue with his splendid views on such matters in that new office.
	Those who want to join the euro do not appreciate the importance in managing an economy of having control of the value of one's currency relative to other currencies, and of having control over interest rates. If macro-economic policy cannot be controlled at member state level, inevitably, states will be tied to a policy that is not necessarily in their own interests. We have seen that inside the eurozone already. Some countries joined the euro at a parity that was too high for their economy, and some joined at a low parity, which has been advantageous. Ireland and Spain have benefited tremendously from that as they were forced to reduce their interest rates.
	According to studies of the appropriate interest rates in countries given the state of their economies, the Spanish and Irish interest rates should be higher and the German interest rates much lower. It is no surprise that demand is constantly depressed in the German economy, as Germany cannot reduce its interest rates to stimulate demand. It does not do too badly in terms of trade but, internally, it is constantly in near recession as it cannot reduce interest rates and therefore raise domestic demand.
	Fortunately, we have careful control of our interest rates, which we adjust monthly when necessary. We might argue about whether they should go up or down, but at least we can adjust them according to our own economy and our own needs. If we chose to do so, we could also take steps to adjust our exchange rate in relation to the currencies of our trading partners, such as the dollar or the euro. Every major economy ought to be able to do that, and if they cannot they will get into deep trouble at some time or other.
	The best example of that is Argentina. It tied the peso to the dollar and made it completely exchangeable, and the middle class sold all their pesos and bought dollars, which almost destroyed its internal economy. After 10 years of a nightmare, it broke away from the dollar, devalued and started to rebuild its economy. Fortunately, it produces splendid wine, of which it now sells a lot, which is helping its economy grow again. For 10 years, however, the madness of tying a weak currency to a strong one almost destroyed what used to be the strongest economy in south America. We do not want to go down that route. Any country that chooses to bury its currency in that way would make a big mistake.
	I would draw a distinction between a stable exchange rate system like the one that we had after the war and a single currency. With a stable exchange rate system, in extremis a country can change the value of its currency relative to others. We have done that a couple of times in our history, and it has had a tremendously beneficial effect on our economy. At present, of course, the euro is suffering greatly from the fact that the dollar is being devalued, and I expect it to have yet more problems because of the inability of individual member states to adjust their own currencies relative to the dollar. It is too rigid; too inflexible.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. McDougal's report about 30 years ago pointed out that without the capacity for major fiscal transfers between member states, it would be impossible to run a single currency. A single tax and benefits system allowing standard benefit and tax rates throughout the system would not, in the end, work, and there are those who think that, in the end, the eurozone will fail for that reason.
	A few weeks ago, the danger arose that citizens of our country would be able to buy alcoholic drinks on the internet without paying the duties and taxes that are due here. No doubt that would have been tremendously attractive to heavy drinkers, but it would have caused mayhem. It would have destroyed the alcohol licence and retail trades in Britain—and at a time when we are grappling with the problem of excessive drinking among young people and the binge-drink culture, an ocean of rock-bottom-cheap alcohol would have suddenly flooded the country. It would have been a nightmare.
	Interestingly, however, the European Union backed off. It did not press its case. There must have been some pretty heavy lobbying behind the scenes by the Treasury, and rightly so. I assume that the Treasury said, "If you do that, the European Union will be in serious trouble with us", and as a result the EU backed off from the mad idea of allowing people to buy cheap drinks in Latvia. I believe that Latvia was the country that would have benefited: it was to be the warehouse providing cheap drinks for the British—indeed, for the whole of Europe.
	It is significant that when a point is reached at which the European Union might be seriously damaged—might start to fall apart because it has done something utterly and totally daft—it backs off. It has backed off over this issue, and I hope that it will continue to do so when the daftest ideas arise. I certainly hope it will do so when it comes to pressing the case for the European constitution and forcing countries to join the eurozone, because that would cause serious difficulty for Britain and many other countries.
	I support my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and her Minister for Europe in their negotiations. I hope that they will adopt the position they have adopted in the past and will represent Britain and our view effectively in Europe next week.

Adam Afriyie: I welcomed much of what was said by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins).
	It is a great privilege to serve as a Member of this House. It strikes me that its primary function in a democracy is to create, amend, modify and repeal the laws of the nation, hopefully in the interests of British citizens. I think that people elect their Governments to serve the national interest. Sometimes, of course, it is necessary to sign international treaties on trade or aid, provided that that is in the interests of British citizens. However, such agreements should not include the wholesale handing over of control of our defence, our economy, or powers to make or modify our laws.
	It is worth reflecting for a few moments on what might have been if citizens and campaign groups had not alerted the Government to some of the dangers posed by adventures that the Government had hoped to undertake in recent years. Having played a role in Business for Sterling and the "No to the euro" campaign since 1998, I am very much aware that in 1997-98 about 70 per cent. of the public was of the view that it was inevitable that we would join the euro, and about 90 per cent. of members of the Government of that time were in favour of joining the euro. It was almost as though we were in bunkers and outgunned on all sides, but gradually—and under duress—over a period of years a rational view prevailed. It was eventually recognised, including by the Chancellor, that maintaining our control of British interest rates, and thereby being able to control our economy via them, was the best way to generate a more competitive economy.
	It is also interesting that not too long ago there was an ardent Government campaign for us to sign the European Union constitution. I remember commentating on Sky as the Prime Minister actually signed the EU constitution—we should not forget that he put his signature to the constitution. There was also a massive campaign in favour of it—so thank goodness not only for our own citizens' views, but for the French and the Danish for rescuing us from what could have been a catastrophic position. I will not go through all the arguments on this topic, but if we had signed the EU constitution we would not be a freely trading independent state; we would be a subservient state of a European superstate. In hindsight, both now and in years to come, we are, and we will be, glad that we did not sign it.
	Members have spoken eloquently on sovereignty, the supremacy of Parliament, defence and controlling our borders as part of what makes being an independent state, so I shall focus on business and competitiveness before going on to share some of my hopes for the future of the EU—because I am in some ways fairly, although also cautiously, optimistic about its future in a new form.
	We must never forget that business is the engine of our economy and that freely operating British businesses that do not have too many burdens of bureaucracy on them generate all the jobs, all the income and all the taxation that pays for the good things that we want in society, such as health, education and pensions. I did mean to say that all the jobs come from business, because the taxation raised from business is what pays for Government jobs, quango jobs and our doctors and nurses. Any unnecessary burden or regulation on business is unwelcome and should be questioned.
	It is a striking fact that about 70 per cent. of business regulation and legislation originates in the EU. We could claim that many of the regulations and laws—or the aspirations of many of them—are in our national interest. Plenty of arguments could be put forward on that topic. However, what is clear is that the EU has in many ways moved on from prescriptive legislation in the past year or two. It has begun to look at principles-based legislation—a simple principle is brought into effect and then it is left to businesses to determine how best to put it into practice and to make their own decisions without being overwhelmed with reams of paperwork. Sadly, the Government have not yet cottoned on to that, or to the fact that it means that they no longer need to gold-plate legislation coming from the EU. One can simply reflect a few lines or pages, rather than tens of thousands of words and hundreds of pages of regulation, on British businesses.
	The British Chambers of Commerce estimates that the new burden of business regulation is about £50 billion, about 70 per cent. of which comes from the EU. I recall several years ago looking at the working time directive guidance. There were over 100 pages. I sat scan-reading it for about five or six hours, when at that time I should really have just been getting on with running my business. Even to this day, I cannot quite fathom the calculation for working out whether employees have been working an average of 48 hours a week over a 17-week period; it is mayhem. I can pretty much guarantee to the House that many small and medium-sized businesses will not be adhering to the working time directive by keeping such records. If they implemented all the detail in much of that guidance, they would simply be unable to run their businesses.
	On European regulation, there are two main challenges. First, although not all the stock of existing regulation needs to be undone, that needs to happen to a certain degree. Secondly, we must consider the flow of new regulations. Fortunately, that flow has slowed somewhat, but a lot remains to be done in stemming it further. That is largely a job for this House, as it examines the regulations coming through via statutory instruments and their implementation.
	I want to finish by painting a slightly more hopeful picture of the future of the European Union. We are all very aware of the existing EU's failings and the challenges that we face, but I am hopeful and reasonably optimistic about the medium to long-term future. With enlargement comes opportunities; with enlargement, the mood and culture of the EU changes. Since Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland joined a few years ago, the culture of the EU has become more entrepreneurial. Those countries recognise the benefit of commerce and free trade, not only within the EU but in a global context. To a certain degree, that adds to the EU.
	We also have the opportunity to adopt more inthe way of principles-based legislation, instead of prescriptive regulation, and to reform European institutions. Members have mentioned the changes that they would like to see, many of which are very sensible. In the light of enlargement, perhaps it is time to consider having a single European language. I am not sure which language we might nominate, but that would certainly save a lot of translation. What do we think?

Adam Afriyie: I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's comments very carefully, but I was not necessarily proposing that at this precise moment.
	There is also a great opportunity for democracy. Many Members have spoke about the democratic deficit and the fact that European citizens feel disfranchised—that they feel no connection with the European Parliament and the other European institutions. There is an opportunity to establish a flexible, outward-looking grouping of independent nations, and enlargement brings that prospect slightly closer.
	In essence, might we dare hope for a newly evolved European Union in years to come—a grouping of democratic and independent nations co-operating in various ways on trade and aid, and in many other fields? Why should we limit our ambitions? Why do we not hope for a massive expansion of the EU? Why not add 10, 20 or even 100 new independent states? If we add 100, we will have outgrown Europe, so perhaps we would have to rename the EU. Perhaps we could call it "a global economy".

Philip Davies: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who made a typically thoughtful and intelligent speech. I want to concentrate on one of the most fundamental issues facing Britain and Europe. Despite its importance, it is subject to little if any debate in this House.
	Opinion polls consistently show that between 40 and 50 per cent. of the UK population favour Britain's withdrawal from the EU, and that less than half the remainder are convinced that we should remain in that organisation. That means that a clear majority of the British public are either convinced that we should withdraw or are sceptical about our continued membership. Indeed, in opinion polls more people express their support for EU withdrawal than say that they would vote either Labour or Conservative in a general election.
	The question of EU withdrawal is yet another matter on which the British public are way ahead of politicians. Back in 2004, the EU was included in the US Central Intelligence Agency's "World Factbook", an open-source publication that tracks the key characteristics of every nation around the globe. That was the first time that a supranational body had ever been included in a publication dedicated to tracking developments in nation states. The CIA said that it had included the EU because it had
	"many of the attributes associated with independent states: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded."
	So much for the intelligence-gathering abilities of the CIA, as I could have told it that a long time ago. I might also have mentioned that the EU has its own president, Parliament, Court and embassies.
	It is hard to argue against many of the indictments against the EU. As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said, about 70 per cent. of our laws now emanate from the EU rather than from here. The rulings of unelected Commissioners take precedence over the wishes of democratically elected national Parliaments. Most people understand that the EU is inefficient and wasteful, and that it suffers from systemic corruption.
	More often than not, EU supporters do not attempt to defend the organisation against those charges. From time to time, warm words are offered about reform, but little debate is ever allowed on the fundamental question of our relationship with a body that is failing and undemocratic. Instead, those who support the EU engage in skilful if sometimes frustrating shadow boxing.
	For example, I recently tabled some questions about the number of our jobs that are dependent on our membership of the EU. I was told that about 3 million jobs depend on our trade with EU countries. There is no doubt that those jobs and that commerce are among the benefits of free trade, but they are not benefits of EU membership, as I shall try to explain later.
	However, responses of that sort are not unusual. People who support the EU project bring the debate back to the UK economy and jobs, and in my opinion they are right to do so, as few people give much thought to the EU and its role in our democracy. Instead—and of course—they think about their jobs, pensions and the money in their pocket, but EU supporters are wrong to suggest that arguments based on jobs and the economy make the case for the UK's continued membership.
	For most people, the distant and impersonal EU is less tangible than questions about schools, hospitals, police on our streets and the money in our pockets. Few spend much time thinking about the EU constitution, but mortgages, bills and pensions occupy most people's thoughts every day. Equally, people in business are likely to be far more concerned about making money and growing their businesses than about questions to do with the structure of the EU.
	It is on the economy that the argument as to whether Britain remains in the EU will be lost or won, as those who support our staying in the EU realised a long time ago. By presenting EU membership in economic terms, successive Governments have been able to sell what is essentially a political and unpopular project to the British people. However, we should look at the figures and examine the economics. When we consider the EU's effect on trade, jobs and growth we find that the case for Britain leaving the EU is more compelling than ever.
	We are told that, if we were ever to withdraw from the EU, Britain's economy and out trade with our European neighbours would suffer, and that jobs and prosperity would be lost. We are told that more than60 per cent. of our trade is with the EU, and that withdrawal would mean the loss of our markets there. We are told that the single market has been good for our economy and that we would suffer financial consequences from withdrawal. We are told that if we left 3 million jobs would be lost.
	If I were the managing director of a small company or if I were employed in manufacturing, I would find those arguments compelling.

Philip Davies: If the Minister will be patient, I will explain the problem of EU regulation. Indeed, I come to the very point now. Earlier this year, the Enterprise and Industry Commissioner, Gunther Verheugen, said that EU regulations were costing the European economy €600 billion a year. That amounts to about 5.5 per cent. of Europe's total gross domestic product. That is staggering enough: on the Commission's own figures, European businesses are losing the equivalent of the entire GDP of Holland every single year.
	If we consider that against what the EU considers to be the financial benefits of the single market, the case against the EU becomes a bit more open and shut. The most recent Commission estimates are for 2002, when the single market benefits were put at €165 billion—quite substantially less than the costs. Even taking account of inflation, the costs of EU membership to business are about three times the benefits. So much for the economic benefits of the EU. Far from being good for business, the bureaucratic EU is actually profoundly harmful to business—and that according to the European Commission itself. I wonder how much of those costs are falling on the shoulders of British businesses and I wonder what a business man might feel about withdrawal when faced with that particular fact.
	ICM recently conducted a poll that found that 54 per cent. of businesses think that the cost of implementing EU regulations now outweighs the benefit of the single market. That poll also showed that 52 per cent. of chief executives think that the EU is failing and that 60 per cent. want what I advocate—withdrawal from the EU and a free trade agreement with EU countries. Crucially, only 24 per cent. of those business people thought that the EU would increase in economic importance in the future, whereas 35 per cent. thought that it would decline. Our future prosperity, Madam Deputy Speaker, depends on trading with countries such as China, India and South America and with the Commonwealth; it does not depend on being part of an inward-looking, backward-looking protection racket, which is what the EU has become.
	Since 1970, the United States has enjoyed net growth of about 25 per cent., yet the EU—this much heralded economic powerhouse—has enjoyed net growth of around zero. When it comes to such stark figures, we have to ask whether the EU has contributed towards that sluggish growth. If we compare the EU's stifling levels of regulation and high taxes with the USA's business-friendly, low-tax economy, we are forced to conclude that the EU's social democratic model has contributed to it. If the Chancellor is to be believed, the UK has enjoyed the longest period of sustained growth, but what could it have been without the drag of the European Union?
	If we are to compete with the vastly cheaper labour forces of India and China, our economy will need to be agile and competitive with a light regulatory touch—not the EU model of crippling regulation, restrictive employment laws and high taxes. Surely the EU and the British Government must see the economic threat to our economy from India and China. In years to come, Madam Deputy Speaker, historians will look back and say that the biggest winner of the EU project was China.
	Britain puts more into the pot than it gets out. We have been a net contributor to the EU ever since it started. We have contributed almost £200 billion in membership fees alone, and we will add another£14 billion to our bill for continued membership next year. The annual cost of the EU for every man, woman and child works out at £873. Can we imagine what a hard-working family of four on a tight budget could do with that kind of money—about £3,500? Every minute of 2007, the EU will cost the UK £100,000. Let us just think of the nurses, operations, hospitals, policemen, prisons or even cuts that such a figure could pay for. When you consider how wasteful the EU is, how many people do you think, Madam Deputy Speaker, would think that it was the best way to spend all that money?

Philip Davies: I am sure you would agree with me if you did join in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Member states are unlikely to do anything to expose corruption in the EU. Those who are net receivers are unlikely to raise objections about an inefficient and wasteful system. They know that the EU does not work, but it works for them. For net contributors such as the UK, the cost of the EU—inefficient or otherwise—is a debate that the Government do not want to happen. They do not want the EU to have to wash its dirty linen in public or for the British public to see how many doctors, nurses and police officers could be paid for with the money wasted in Brussels.
	I am sure that, when I sit down, Government Members will say that my speech shows that the Conservative party is anti-European and that it has not changed. I do not claim to be speaking on behalf of the party; I am speaking on behalf of what I believe in. It is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) that he has allowed Back Benchers freely to express our views on withdrawing from the EU and the debate not to be shut down, as the Government would like.
	I have tried to argue my case for EU withdrawal as a positive step for the future, not as something that is backward looking, by referring not to historic arguments about constitutions, but to the competitiveness of our economy. If we are to attract investment and win business in the future, we must start freeing ourselves from this stifling political Union. The 21st century, with the emerging economies of Asia, is not a time for uncompetitive protection rackets. Business is global, and if we are to compete, we must be too. Governments must reflect that with light regulatory touch, and the main impediment to that is the EU. When considering the case for Britain being better off out of the EU, I am reminded of the words from Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential election campaign headquarters: "It's the economy, stupid."

Daniel Kawczynski: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Britain will be a major gas importer in future years, so the Government should be doing more to lead the way on securing a major contract with Russia.
	While I am on the subject of Russia, I feel very strongly about the disturbing reaction to the death of Mr. Litvinenko. Of course we should be concerned about alleged poisonings, but we cannot be prosecutor, judge and jury. I was absolutely appalled when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as part of his great wish to become the next deputy leader of the Labour party and to appear on television, accused President Putin on British broadcasting of being involved in the poisonings. That was an absolute outrage. It is not for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to accuse the democratically-elected President of Russia of poisoning. Yes, we have concerns, but we believe, even with regard to Mr. Putin, that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Daniel Kawczynski: The hon. Gentleman and I have spoken about Belarus on many occasions. The west played a huge part in freeing the formerly communist countries of eastern Europe from tyranny. The BBC played a role by broadcasting to those countries in their own languages, showing them that there was a world outside communism in which people had freedom, managed to enjoy democracy and were not fearful of the secret police. That gave tremendous succour to the people of eastern Europe. They really appreciated it, and were extremely grateful to Great Britain and the BBC for standing up to communism and showing them an alternative. We need to do the same for Belarus. We need to broadcast to its people to show them that the tyranny of President Lukashenko is not inevitable, and to show them that they should aspire to democracy, and to joining the free countries of Europe. We should invite Opposition leaders from Belarus to London, and we should give university scholarships to Belarusians. Most importantly, political parties need to build bridges with Opposition parties and to help them financially in any way that they can.
	I come to the last part of my speech in which I will say something nice about the Labour party. Many Labour hon. Members played a tremendous role in safeguarding democracy in Portugal in 1975. Some hon. Members may remember that, in 1975, Mario Soares was trying to install a new democracy after the military dictatorship in Portugal, and members of the international socialist movement ensured that that happened, by making repeated visits to Portugal, and by inviting Opposition leaders here. Callaghan, Wilson and many other others stayed close to Mario Soares, and they helped to nurture democracy in Portugal. The Labour party and other socialist parties across Europe played a fundamental role in helping Mario Soares to retain democracy in Portugal. My generation has a responsibility to do the same for the poor people of Belarus.

Jeremy Browne: I have done some research on the subject. In 1980, EU nations produced 26 per cent. of global output, but by 2003, that had fallen to 22 per cent. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that it will be 17 per cent. in 2005, and perhaps as low as10 per cent. by the middle of century. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that that continent-wide malaise should be a priority for all EU members?

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as ever, and I entirely agree with him. It is not just the Kurds; there is a whole range of ethnic minorities within the Turkish nation with which the Government of Turkey need to deal in a far better way than they do today.
	A further point on Turkey relates to safeguarding our national culture. Our Government sometimes describe Turkey as a secular nation; at other times they describe it as a Muslim nation. We should try to encourage democracy in Turkey and to buttress, support and strengthen it. We should encourage the moderate voices in that nation. However, the British Government's view of Turkey, as expressed in their foreign policy, should not be driven by American foreign policy. Yes, I understand America's strategic geopolitical and defence position of wanting Turkey to be westward facing rather than eastward facing, but Turkey is already a member of the customs union, and it benefits greatly from its trading relationship with the European Union. Even if the EU decided not to allow it to become a full member, I do not think that it would suddenly pull up the drawbridge and stop trading with other European nations. It would not cut off its nose to spite its face. Nor do I believe that it would turn eastwards towards the central Asian republics, because those republics are also looking westwards. Therefore, I believe that that is a false argument.
	We have heard today—even from the Liberal Democrats—about supporting an independent British foreign policy. The issue of Turkey represents an opportunity to assert British independence in foreign policy outside of American strategic geopolitical interests. Some elements of the Austrian position on Turkey are right, and many of the points that Germany has made are correct. Even the French have been right about some of their concerns over Turkish accession.
	Another key issue is the free movement of people, should Turkey become a full member. With 15,000 people having come from the Baltic states and Poland in the most recent accessions, how many would we see coming here from Turkey? Would it be 15,000, or half a million, or more? How would that change our nation? Would it change our culture or our identity? Thisis not a criticism or a slight on the Turkish people. I have Turkish people in my constituency—they are wonderful people who are fully integrated into the Shropshire community in which I live. However, this is a matter of making our own national culture and identity—and, arguably, in extreme circumstances, our national security—paramount, and placing them above the interests even of those in the State Department in the United States.
	I also want to touch on the position of the Vatican, the Holy See, in relation to Turkey. His Holiness the Pope visited Turkey recently and it was claimed by some elements of the Turkish media—and, indeed, the British media—that he had changed his view about Turkey. It was declared that while he had previously not been keen on the idea of Turkey's accession, as a result of his visit he had endorsed proposals for its full membership. I understand, however, that that is not the position. I have checked this over the past 48 hours, and the position is that the Vatican is neutral on the matter. It is neither in support of nor against Turkey becoming a full member. It is important to put that on the record because some of the British media followed the Turkish media in getting that wrong. There is no endorsement from the Catholic Church—I speak asa non-Catholic—for Turkey joining the European Union.
	We have heard some excellent contributions today on the European constitutional treaty. I would be interested to hear what the Government's position is on this matter because I am still confused, especially after the Home Secretary's reference this week to the constitutional treaty as a "diseased dead parrot". I am not sure whether that was a misquote. Perhaps it should have read "a deceased dead parrot", if it was a reference to the "Monty Python" sketch. While the treaty might be dead—I say "might"—is it buried? As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said, there is talk of a mini treaty. However mini and compressed a new treaty might be, if issues of competency and sovereignty are involved the Government should allow this nation a referendum. It is time that we took powers back from Europe, rather than giving new powers to Europe.
	A couple of weeks ago in the House, I mentioned the charter of fundamental rights. Despite the treaty not having been ratified by all the nation states, some European Courts have referred to the charter of fundamental rights in cases over the past few weeks. Why is that happening? Is not that ultra vires? Is not it beyond their legal powers to make reference to a charter that has not been ratified?
	Why are offices apparently being purchased and personnel recruited for the external action service, the European Union's so-called diplomatic service? That was part of the treaty, and has not been agreed. What legal powers have been given for that to go ahead? Who is paying for the budget for that? We should retain our own diplomatic service and not have a common diplomatic corps. With the greatest respect to France, I do not think that a French ambassador representing European Union interests would necessarily always have the same foreign policy or even commercial dimension in mind when representing British interests or a British company in another nation. It is disappointing that we are closing diplomatic missions around the world, such as in Tonga and Paraguay.
	Britain needs to have an independent foreign policy, working closely with the Americans when it is right to do so, and working with our European partners when it is right to do so, but, first and foremost, putting national interests above all else.

Douglas Carswell: Absolutely. I think that the European Union is one of the biggest obstacles not just to free trade but to fair trade, and one of the biggest obstacles to the negotiation of lower tariff barriers. If politicians in the House want to help Africa, instead of making speeches that emote about it and posing for photographs, they might like to axe the tariffs. They might like to tackle the Foreign Office's obsession with European integration.
	Outside the European Union, with an independent trade policy made not by Mr. Mandelson's remote officials in the interests of protectionism but by Ministers accountable to the House, Britain could liberalise trade. We could open our markets up to Africa and the developing world. That might upset the career diplomats at the Foreign Office, but as a report by the think-tank Open Europe shows, it would be good for the British economy. It would be in our national economic interest.
	European integration has dictated our foreign policy agenda for too long. The Foreign Office establishment has gone unquestioned for too long. The challenges faced by the western world—the rise of China and India, terrorism, the mass movement of people—require some degree of international co-operation by national Governments, but they do not require supranationalism. Being in the EU means that instead of taking action to deal with real problems, successive Governments have sought to Europeanise responsibility. They have passed the buck to Brussels. That does not solve or address problems; it merely pushes responsibility on to remote and unaccountable technocrats.

Douglas Carswell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. An important fiat for closer integration is the judicialfiat of the European institutions—the fiat of judicial activism.
	When those unaccountable technocrats take responsibility, politicians are able to create the illusion that they are responding without, in fact, taking action. I believe that the United Kingdom must withdraw from the European Union, because it is increasingly evident that it is in our national interest to quit.
	I do not consider reform of the EU to be a realistic option. The objective of every Government since we acceded to the treaty of Rome has been to reform the common agricultural policy. Despite three notable attempts, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that reform has cut subsidy by just 1.5 per cent. Far from liberalising and achieving the Lisbon objectives, it has meant that EU rules and regulations have grown ever more prescriptive.
	The notion that we might reform the EU into something that it is in our national interest to remain part of is a fantasy. It is, I believe, the greatest Euro-myth of all. The EU cannot reform, because its institutions lack the democratic accountability and scrutiny that would drive them to reform. We often debate European affairs in the House, and there is much talk of reform. There is much talk of enlargement, the Lisbon agenda, and qualified majority voting. It is so much hot air. It is time for the House to recognise what many in the country now recognise: the EU will not reform in the way that it should, regardless of enlargement. The Lisbon agenda will not be met. QMV will continue to make the continent sclerotic. When we debate European affairs we must debate the real issue: should we be in or out? I say we should be out.

Tobias Ellwood: I had not planned to participate in the debate, but I have been encouraged to do so by the excellent contributions from Members of various parties. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell), who speaks with passion and knowledge about tariffs and other issues that affect the European Union. I hope that he understands that I do not necessarily share all his views, but it is nevertheless good to hear them.
	Much of our debate has rightly focused on the upcoming European Council agenda, although I recall the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) asking why Conservative Front Benchers were focusing on the constitution, as that is not on the agenda so we should not need to discuss it. The point is that the constitution and issues around it are unresolved business; if we looked at the minutes of previous meetings, we would see that it is outstanding business. It should be brought forward. However, we seem still to be in a period of reflection. We have heard time and again in the Chamber about the growing economic competitiveness of India, China, Brazil and other countries, and yet we still seem to be in a state of reflection. The constitution issue is fundamental to how we will go forward. What is the purpose of the European Union? What is it actually for? Such questions are still outstanding and they need to be resolved.
	Like many other Conservative Members, I am concerned about the balance of power between the United Kingdom and Brussels. The referendums in Holland and France showed that there is growing grass-roots concern elsewhere that there is an unaccountability in Brussels that is unacceptable and that powers should be returned from that central unit to the sovereign states. When it was devised, the whole purpose of the EU was as a trading platform not a political programme, but that is what it has turned into, and it has done so without any checks or balances. We are not addressing such accountability issues despite the fact that we now have the opportunity to do so, as there is an absence of anything concrete coming forward because the constitution has been hit into the long grass.
	I intervened on the Foreign Secretary to point out that there is a concern about value for money. A lot of UK Eurosceptics could at least feel a little warmer about the concept of the EU if the waste of money aspect were addressed, and that would be simple to do. There is still the ridiculous situation of our having two Parliament buildings. We have a tentative idea that the Government are looking into that, but for how long do they need to do so? There are two Parliament buildings, and every time that all the MEPs—along with the whole caboodle—get on the gravy train and move from one side of Europe to another there is a complete waste of money. Let us get rid of Strasbourg; let us do that today. That would give the people of Britain a strong message that we would like to save money.

Andrew MacKinlay: I see that I have rattled a few cages. I give way first to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz).

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Ithas been an excellent debate, in which we have heard13 speeches. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) was the unlucky 13th, but he delivered an excellent, witty, off-the-cuff speech. The House was privileged to hear it; it was well worth waiting for. I should apologise for the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is not in his place. He is currently visiting Pakistan, as the Minister knows, so he is unable to be here this evening.
	I am delighted to see the Minister for Europe in his place. A month ago at Foreign Office questions, we were all slightly worried that he had taken on the vows of a Trappist monk, not being allowed to speak on Europe. So worried did I get that I took up the matter further with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time. On 1 November, the Prime Minister said:
	"What my right hon. Friend is doing on behalf of this country in Europe is absolutely excellent."—[ Official Report, 1 November 2006; Vol. 451, c. 295.]
	Obviously, relations have been repaired, as he went off to Riga and is in his place tonight answering this debate. We are delighted to see him and even more delighted than usual as I gather it is his birthday— [Interruption.] No, I am not going to say how old he is; he would not want me to do so.
	The Foreign Secretary correctly summed up current European challenges when he defined them at the Finnish embassy lunch on 28 November as
	"counter-terrorism, climate change, nuclear proliferation, jobs and growth in a globalised world, organised crime, drugs, securing the energy we need to power our economies".
	I doubt whether anyone could have summed them up better than that, but we have had 13 excellent speeches today so I shall try to mention some of them.
	The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) spoke at length about the carbon emissions trading scheme. I totally agree that we want to make that scheme work. We want to ensure that it works fairly towards British companies and that other companies, as my right hon. Friend the Memberfor Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said in a timely intervention, do not issue too many permits, thereby forcing our companies to purchase them at an excess price. I also wholly agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North about the need for a forward-looking EU policy on biofuels and clean-coal technology, which will be vital in future if we are to reduce our carbon emissions.
	We then heard from my old friend the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), and I agree with him that the EU affects a vast amount of our constituents' lives—it certainly does—and that EU policy on co-operation is being tested in a number of areas of the world, not least in Iraq, the middle east and Sudan, and we need to co-operate more closely with them on that. His amendment to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill—which, as he said, was supported by Conservative Front Benchers—was an innovative solution to which, I am sure, we will wish to return.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston(Ms Stuart), who, sadly, is not in her seat—[Hon. Members: "She is."] Oh, she is. I am very sorry. She has moved seats, and I apologise to her. Of course, she did an excellent job on the convention last year. She mentioned the very important problems of Kosovo, which the hon. Member for Thurrock has just mentioned, and the possible implications for Russia of the independence movements in the Caucasus states. We all need to concentrate carefully on that very important issue.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the European Defence Agency, as did a number of other hon. Members, and I want to say something about it this evening. I do not agree with her. When NATO secured the peace all through the cold war; when NATO played a major part in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans to secure the peace; when we have been invited into Afghanistan, under a United Nations resolution, to try to secure peace, infrastructure building and democracy; and when some European countries are not prepared to play their full part—even if they do play their fullpart, they do not do so with the flexibility of troops needed by the commanders on the ground—I do not understand in those circumstances why we need a separate European Defence Agency. As has been mentioned, when most European countries spend less than, or about, 1 per cent. of the gross domestic product on defence, the problem is that they need to spend more on defence, so that we can share the burden of defence more equally than we do at present.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) made one of the most telling speeches in the debate. Of course, like other hon. Members, he was very supportive of EU enlargement. The Conservative party is particularly keen on enlargement, and many Members have spoken either in favour of or against Turkish membership. I want to say one or two things about Turkish membership. Turkey is, of course, a very large country, with a population of about 80 million, which is set to grow towards 100 million in the near future, and we all recognise the immigration problems that that could create. We all recognise the problems that Turkey has with different religious and political minorities.
	We recognise the problem of the green line in Cyprus. I visited Cyprus earlier this year. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said, we recognise the difficulty of property rights in northern Cyprus. Of course we wish to see Turkey making progress on entry into the ports and airports in the north of Cyprus. All those things are difficulties; but as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, if having encouraged Turkey to open negotiations, the EU were to turn its back on Turkey and as result it became an Islamic state, the whole EU would rue that day. We must be very careful about that.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins)—I regret that I was not here when he made his speech—said that regional PR led to risky euro-enthusiastic MEPs. That may well be the case, and it may well be that we do not like the PR system and the open list system for elections to the European Parliament and we wish that the European Parliament had better scrutiny of the Commission's affairs, but the European Parliament is nevertheless some form of democratically elected body.
	I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie): we want the EU to be an open, trading non-bureaucratic body. We want it to succeed in world trade. As the Chancellor said today in his pre-Budget statement, we must look outwards to the rest of the world. We must look at what is going on in China and India and in the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. I attended the ASEAN gala dinner on Monday, and it is delightful to know that Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation is getting together in Vietnam—Vietnam of all countries, one of the most suppressed countries in the world emerging on to the world stage. Those are the challenges that the EU must face.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made his traditional call for withdrawal from the EU. I have to say to him, in the gentlest and nicest terms—he is a good chap—that that is not official Opposition policy. We want to work within the EU. We want to see a reformed EU; but we do not wish to leave the EU. Let me tell him why. The EU has been amazing in embracing some of the most oppressed countries in the world—some of the former Commonwealth of Independent States countries. The whole EU, including this country, has benefited from the enlargement of the membership of the EU. NATO has benefited from the increased membership of the Baltic states, Ukraine and others.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) was also sceptical about the European experiment. We all have reservations about the European experiment. He talked about mission creep, and meddling and interfering. I have that fear about the new human rights body in Vienna. Human rights should be a matter that each individual state is proud to uphold and to have an excellent record on. We do not need an overarching body to tell us what to do in that respect.
	My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin graphically described some of the problems of Turkish membership. I have mentioned that. He also looked forward and considered what might have been in relation to the European constitution. With the advent of the French and the Dutch referendums, let us hope that the constitution is well and truly buried. I hope that, when the Minister for Europe sums up, he will tell us something about that. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend: we do not wish to see an external diplomatic service. We want to see the Government keeping British embassies open throughout the world and having the highest standards of ethics, morals and effectiveness. The British diplomatic service has been renowned for that in this and the last century.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell), in the sort of robust speech that he is renowned for, pointed to the fact that there are much higher tariff barriers for some African countries. That is a real worry. It is a real concern in terms of the failure of the WTO Doha round of trade talks. We all want to see progress on the Doha round. The Government could do more to press their friend the Trade Commissioner to make sure that we are not continually protecting agricultural subsidies and farmers who are not competing in the real world. I say that as a farmer myself—I have declared that in the Register of Members' Interests.
	It is shameful that the APEC countries that met in Vietnam last week said that they were prepared to break the deadlock on the WTO round provided that others did the same. The European Union could have done more. A successful Doha round, as my hon. Friend said, would be of enormous benefit to some of the poorest countries in the world. We should not shut them out from our markets. That is what is happening in far too many cases—by means not just of tariff barriers, but of non-tariff barriers and a whole range of other bureaucratic mechanisms for keeping them out of our market.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) made a typically robust speech. He, too, mentioned the problems of NATO and a separate European defence agency. I thoroughly agree with him.
	It has been a great privilege to sum up in this debate. The EU has expanded from the original six members when we joined it in 1973, to nine as it was then, to27 now—looking forward to 30 with the advent of Croatia, Montenegro and Turkey. It is a very different Union from the one that existed in the original days of the European Economic Community. We need to look for continual reform. We look for inspired leadership. When the Prime Minister came to office, he said that he would give us that inspired leadership as far as Europe is concerned. We are still waiting. We very much hope that, at next week's summit, he will show some of that inspired leadership and make sure that the European Union is pointed in the direction that we want to see it go in—a full, open, non-bureaucratic, trading organisation that creates employment and wealth for its citizens.

Geoff Hoon: May I begin by expressing my appreciation to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for his good wishes? I clearly could not think of a better,more satisfying way of spending the first day of my 54th year. The debate was obviously specially arranged for me by the Whips Office. It reminds me a little of those childhood treats, such as going to the cinema or the zoo—actually, I should not dwell on going to the zoo.
	We have had a valuable debate. The focus, quite rightly, has been overwhelmingly on how all member states can get the most from their contribution to the European Union, how we in the United Kingdom can ensure that the EU is working for the people of Britain, and how we can play our part, with others, in steering the EU in the right direction. Above all, that flows from a recognition that the European Union is central to much of what we in this country want to achieve on a wide range of policies, including environmental protection, climate change, energy security and development. The Government are playing a leading role in the European Union to ensure that we can respond effectively to the political challenges of the 21st century.
	Cross-border problems cannot be solved by little Englanders pretending to be able to act in isolation from the rest of Europe, as too many Conservative Members would have us believe. The Leader of the Opposition's rhetoric on the importance of tackling climate change is hopelessly inconsistent with his approach to Europe. Indeed, I am curious to know whether the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) could at any time enlighten us about his actual policy on Europe, or even tell us whether his party has a policy on Europe. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman is not an English batsman because he is able to talk at great length without giving anything away. At no point during the course of his rather long speech did he reveal any aspect of what is positively his policy. Again, as far as I could detect, his policy appears to be something of splendid isolation. Perhaps we should reflect on the fact that one of his colleagues described him as a good negotiator, although there was no evidence that he wanted to discuss anything. As far as I could detect from his speech, Conservative party policy on Europe is "just say no".
	I can reveal to the House, perhaps exclusively,that the Leader of the Opposition, after more than12 months in that position, has decided to make his very first visit to Brussels. The right hon. Gentleman might need some assistance as he wanders the corridors of the European Parliament. It would be a shame if he got lost and found himself in a meeting with his natural political ally, the United Kingdom Independence party. It would be interesting to know whether he plans to meet his actual political allies from the European People's party, whose mission is to work for the
	"realisation of the United States of Europe".
	The right hon. Gentleman's programme includes a meeting with the European Commission President, Mr. Barroso. During a recent trip to this country, Mr. Barroso praised the Government for their achievements during the UK presidency last year and stated:
	"Britain is a lead player in Europe".
	He also said:
	"Does the UK want to continue to drive from the centre; or return to sulking from the periphery",
	and it seems to me that he was unconsciously referring to the Conservatives' approach to Europe.
	Let me deal with several of the points that were raised in the debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on his speech. He spoke with his usual skill and eloquence about enlargement and decision making in the European Union and the Lisbon agenda. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) started his speech by reviewing current issues and recent speeches. I was delighted to discover that he reads the speeches made by both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and me with such obvious interest and enthusiasm. With the Christmas recess coming up, I am sure that we can offer him some entertainment as he wiles away the hours between debates on Europe.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) asked several detailed questions about climate change. If he will allow me, I will write to him with detailed responses. However, as I made it clear in my observations about the Leader of the Opposition, if the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) genuinely believes in tackling environmental problems, he must genuinely believe in engagement with the European Union, because it is only through the European Union that it will be possible for this country, working in partnership with other European countries, to develop energy policies that are in line with climate change objectives. His position simply does not make sense. No one would believe a political party that pretended that it was somehow possible to tackle such problems in splendid isolation.

Geoff Hoon: The difference between our respective positions is that I have consistently supported the European Union. To change the EU, we must argue constructively and positively. I have never been entirely sure what the hon. Member for—I have forgotten his wretched constituency —[Interruption.]—Stone believes. He referred to the time that he opposed his Front Bench team, but in recent years the one thing on which I have congratulated him is the fact that he has steered them in the direction in which he believes.

WASTE STRATEGY (SURREY)

Angela Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mole Valley(Sir Paul Beresford) on his success in securing this debate on the draft Surrey waste plan. It is obviously an issue about which he feels passionately. I also thank him for giving me an idea of some of the issues that he was going to raise. As a former planning Minister, he will be familiar with ministerial proprieties in relation to what we now call spatial planning matters. An independent planning inspector will be conducting the public examination into the Surrey waste plan, which will begin in February next year. If I were to comment on the merits of the plan and the proposals that it contains, there would be a risk that I would prejudice the outcome of that examination. The hon. Gentleman will therefore understand that I can talk about the waste plan in only the most general terms.
	I would like to begin by providing some context on waste management and waste planning. It is widely acknowledged that waste management is an issue of national importance, and there is a pressing need for new waste management facilities to be provided throughout the country. The Government's visionfor waste, embodying the principle of sustainable development, is to protect the environment and human health by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible. In particular, this means reducing reliance on landfill and making significant new investment in waste management facilities. Theoretically, the Government would prefer it if no waste at all were produced. Where it is produced, it should be re-used, recycled or composted wherever possible. However, we know that there is a need to manage what is left after recycling and composting, and our view is that energy from waste has an increasingly significant role in diverting waste away from landfill. In doing that, there are potential benefits to be exploited in terms of the security of energy supply, climate change, and our national obligations under the landfill directive, as well as for sustainable development generally.
	The planning system is pivotal to the adequate and timely provision of the new facilities needed for all types of waste. Planning policy statement 10, published in July last year, underlines the importance of planning for, and consenting to, the necessary number and range of facilities to support sustainable waste management. The Government expect development plans to be up to date and fit for purpose.
	I should now like to widen the scope of the debate and say a few words about our reformed planning system, which will help to deliver the mix of development that communities need, in the right place, at the right time and in a faster, fairer and more flexible way. I hope that that will address some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Our reforms are designed to improve the integration between planning for housing, services and other infrastructure, including waste management. That is not an easy challenge to meet, and it places a great responsibility on regional and local planning bodies. We know that it involves taking difficult decisions, so we are asking local councils and their officers to show real leadership, backed up with the best support that the Government can offer.
	Collectively, our challenge is to bring the community on side. The community needs accurate information about the process in order to learn about the choices available and their implications. It is essential that members of the community are fully involved in the planning process, so that they understand that it is not possible to dump all their waste on someone else's doorstep. It is obvious that every human, every home and every business creates waste—indeed, almost every human activity creates waste. We just sometimes try to forget about it. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 introduced major legislative changes to the planning system, which we have underpinned with a programme of changing planning culture. We have made the planning system faster, fairer and more flexible.
	In the past—and too often in the present—industry has complained that it is difficult to get planning permission and that the process takes too long. On the other hand, local communities and environmental non-governmental organisations feel that ill-considered proposals are railroaded through the system. Local planning authorities are often caught in the middle. In my experience, businesses often do not understand the local authority planning process and, likewise, local authorities do not always understand the pressures on business. Greater understanding between the two can smooth the entire process.
	The 2004 Act puts a much stronger emphasis on both the need for speed and the quality of decision making, while emphasising the importance of community consultation and involvement. The hon. Gentleman will know all about the duty to draw up statements of community involvement as part of local development frameworks, which makes sense. With often controversial waste schemes, it is critical that the public do not just object as a matter of principle. Planning authorities must engage and take the community with them as they assess the need for new facilities, identify suitable sites, scrutinise the environmental impacts and ensure open and transparent decision making. Experience has shown that that is a proven way of making faster and better decisions.
	That is the bigger picture that supports PPS10. As PPS10 says, positive planning has an important role to play in delivering a more sustainable approach. It confirms our belief, and enshrines in policy, that good planning strategies, regionally and locally, can help deliver sustainable waste management. Rather than seeing waste as a problem, we need to try to see waste as a resource. Disposal must be the last option, but one which must be catered for adequately.
	Good plans should provide a framework in which communities take more responsibility for their own waste, and enable sufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities to meet the needs of communities. It is possible to deliver the policy outlined in PPS10 by integrating waste management alongside other planning concerns, including housing. We need clear regional strategies and local development frameworks, which provide for waste management and ensure that the design and layout of new development takes waste management into account.
	On the whole, planning applications for waste proposals are determined favourably: the approval rate approaches 90 per cent., which is higher than that for housing. The system is not working as smoothly as it should, however, and decisions are too often taken in a heated, adversarial climate. The end result is that we are still not getting enough waste facilities on the ground. There is a great need for local authorities to engage more with their communities earlier in the development plan process.